| 1 |
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 21:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> | > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too: |
| 5 |
> | > |
| 6 |
> | > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then |
| 7 |
> | > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}" |
| 8 |
> | > |
| 9 |
> | > emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}" |
| 10 |
> | > fi |
| 11 |
> | |
| 12 |
> | No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you |
| 13 |
> | point out to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours |
| 14 |
> | ago, saving us from all the eclass formating, slotting and ewarn |
| 15 |
> | blurb. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why didn't you look before accusing me of not having valid issues? I |
| 18 |
> mean, it's pretty frickin' hard to miss that one. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This code (or an equivalent kludge/hack) does however allow features that are |
| 21 |
of great value to our users. While I agree that such hacks should be avoided |
| 22 |
if possible, I think in this case it is not. As such the appropriate response |
| 23 |
is to isolate the hack in a central place, where it is clear to be seen and |
| 24 |
can easilly be fixed. This allows the quality of the hack to be ensured, |
| 25 |
relieving many webapps from doing hacks themselves. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
While this hack is being used, some effort should be put into constructively |
| 28 |
creating a proper solution for the problems that were hacked around. Saying |
| 29 |
"this is not allowed because of X policy" is not helpful as the costs of |
| 30 |
disallowing it greatly outweigh the costs of overlooking it in a controlled |
| 31 |
manner. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Paul |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 37 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 38 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 39 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives